The first time I did this debate, I got trolled. Lets hope it doesn't happen again.

(SKIP THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ THE BACKGROUNG INFO)

1985. It was a a well-renowned year for many. However, it was also a successful year for the entertainment industry as it was the year "Back to the Future" had made its debut. Now this wasn't the first time time travel had been utilized in a film, but it was certainly the first time a "time-travel" plot had produced a block buster. The movie was so successful that it managed to have sequals. Some contest that the sequ3ls weren't that great, whereas others contest that they were. Personally, I was thoroughly entertained by all three films. As implied, it was a great movie, but like many movies, it had its fair share of problems--most notably its time travel plot holes.

In today's debate, the objective of the instigator (myself) will be to prove that there were the "Back to the Future" films contained plot holes. Given the understanding that the term "holes" being plural may bring one to the conclusion that my opponent can show that there were one or zero plot holes, I am willing to allow that. In other words, if my opponent concedes to one of my arguments, it will not be counted against him when it comes to your judgment concerning who won this debate. That said, such a condition would work both ways as that would mean that I was allowed to concede to arguments as I long as I showed that there were two or more plot holes in the series. If there are any questions concerning the conditions, you are free to ask them in the comment section. With that said, onto my case:

#1. How did Jennifer end up on the bench outside of her home at the end of the third film? Through destroying the Almanac in 1955, that alternate 1985 time line was never created. So if that is the case, that would mean that Marty had taken Jennifer back to her home in what is the time line at the end of the movie. That would also mean that Doc had destroyed the time machine. So tell me? Wouldn't that invalidate more than half of BTTF2 as well as all of BTTF3.

#2. Why have Marty go back through time to rescue Doc Brown in 1885? Wasn't Marty aware of the fact that merely warning 1955 Doc Brown of the events that lead to him to being killed in 1885 would easily prevent him from getting trapped back in 1885 in the first place? It sure worked in the first movie.

#3. How were Marty and Doc able to return from 2015? When old Bif came back to 2015, shouldn't Doc Brown have been transported to a psychiatric asylum? Why wasn't everyone rearranged to match up with the changes in the time line?

#4. When old Bif came back to 1955, he was able to use the time machine in the open. How could anyone not have noticed his entrance?

#5. Finally, the granddaddy of them all. At the end of the third movie, Doc says that the reason the fax (which Jennifer had taken in 2015) had vanished is because the future hasn't been decided yet and that it was whatever you wanted it to be. If that is the case, shouldn't all objects taken from the future vanish? In the first film, Marty's photo of him and his siblings should have vanished. The same goes for the rest of the photos which were said to have been taken from the future.

My answer to all five of these observations is that they are plot holes in the films.

Ladies and Gentleman, my opponent's response is indeed impressive, however, it possesses one fatal flaw that makes it inadmissible in this argument.

Syllogism Format:

1) When the round is forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the alloted time, the statement "There were no time travel plot holes in any of the three Back to the Future films" is to be considered true.

2) This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.

3) Therefore, the statement "There were no time travel plot holes in any of the three "Back to the future" films is to be considered true.

As I said, it looks like a formidable argument, but it falls prey to the non sequitur fallacy. Just because that previous round was forfeited by the debater in the contender position, it does not lead us to conclude that the resolution is false. Thus, with this formidable argument countered, I believe you're only option at this point is to vote CON.

Add that to the fact that my opponent has dropped my entire case, thus, you can extend all of my arguments.

I've refuted his case and merely says the same thing once more. You may dismiss it for the reasons I provided in the previous round. If he doesn't justifiably show how his response nullifies my case by round 3, I win. I now await my opponent's final rebuttal.

duco, A) macs pwn, B) windows xp, while decent when it first came out, is largely outclassed by the new mac OS. and the myriad security holes only continue to be exploited. C) vista is worse then XP, and is the worst OS since windows ME (which was made like this http://xkcd.com...)

RFD's should be required, at least then we'd know why people voted, and *GASP* maybe wed be able to improve.